Disarmament and International Security Committee.
Action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under disarmament and international security agenda items A/C.1/80/L.1, A/C.1/80/L.2, A/C.1/80/L.3, A/C.1/80/L.4, A/C.1/80/L.5, A/C.1/80/L.6, A/C.1/80/L.7, A/C.1/80/L.8, A/C.1/80/L.10, A/C.1/80/L.11, A/C.1/80/L.12, A/C.1/80/L.13, A/C.1/80/L.14, A/C.1/80/L.15, A/C.1/80/L.16, A/C.1/80/L.17, A/C.1/80/L.18, A/C.1/80/L.20, A/C.1/80/L.21, A/C.1/80/L.22, A/C.1/80/L.23, A/C.1/80/L.24, A/C.1/80/L.25, A/C.1/80/L.26, A/C.1/80/L.27, A/C.1/80/L.28, A/C.1/80/L.29, A/C.1/80/L.30, A/C.1/80/L.31, A/C.1/80/L.32, A/C.1/80/L.33, A/C.1/80/L.34, A/C.1/80/L.35, A/C.1/80/L.36, A/C.1/80/L.37, A/C.1/80/L.38, A/C.1/80/L.39, A/C.1/80/L.40, A/C.1/80/L.41, A/C.1/80/L.42, A/C.1/80/L.43, A/C.1/80/L.44, A/C.1/80/L.45, A/C.1/80/L.46, A/C.1/80/L.47, A/C.1/80/L.48, A/C.1/80/L.49, A/C.1/80/L.50, A/C.1/80/L.52, A/C.1/80/L.53, A/C.1/80/L.56, A/C.1/80/L.57, A/C.1/80/L.58, A/C.1/80/L.63
Machine-readable formats: Plain text · JSON
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. Learn more
The 26th meeting of the Disarmament and International Security Committee, First Committee of the Eightieth Session of the General Assembly is called to order. Distinguished delegates, this afternoon the Committee will continue to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda items 92 to 106. We will begin by continuing to listen to delegations requesting the floor for explanations of vote before the vote on proposals under cluster 7, disarmament machinery, as contained in informal paper 2/Rev.4. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.
Thank you, Mr Chair. We take the floor to clarify our position on the preamble paragraph 11 and operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution L.58 entitled "Report of the Conference on Disarmament". First, Turkey reaffirms the value of the Conference on Disarmament as a single multilateral disarmament negotiation forum. where the cornerstone instruments of disarmament and non-proliferation, such as Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, were negotiated and finalized. International community should primarily focus on restoring this mandate. We would like to underscore that resolution 79/71, adopted without a vote last year, had already been strengthened, and its language reflected a delicate compromise. In that context, we demonstrated notable flexibility to support the consensus. While the situation regarding observers has remained the same as last year, the new language altered last year's compromise is introduced in PP11 and OP8, which is neither balanced nor reasonable. We had earlier underscored our concern to such changes on several occasions. Given these considerations, we will abstain in the vote on those paragraphs. Looking ahead, And in order to enhance the CD's credibility, legitimacy, and transparency, we should direct our efforts towards substantive issues that require our collective attention, particularly the need to restore the CD's core mandate to negotiate legally binding instruments as a single multilateral forum on disarmament that enhance transparency, builds trust, and lays the foundations for lasting peace and stability. We will continue to be constructively engaged in the work ahead of us with that understanding. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the representative of Turkey. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand.
Thank you, Chair. I take the floor to explain New Zealand's votes on resolution L58, report of the Conference on Disarmament. We appreciate and commend the tireless efforts of Mexico as the final President of the Conference on Disarmament in 2025 for investing significant effort in trying to find compromises in this year's resolution. Nevertheless, New Zealand will abstain on this resolution. This decision reflects our disappointment that the CD has once again failed to fulfill its mandate as a disarmament negotiating forum. The CD should play a vital role. As we are constantly being reminded, it is the primary multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. However, the CD's working methods, especially a strict consensus requirement, even for procedural matters, has created a situation in which it has persistently failed for so long to do what it was set up to do, that is, to negotiate disarmament agreements. Additionally, it is disappointing and irresponsible how some States abuse consensus to block the participation of observers in the work of the Conference. It is for this reason that we will abstain on PP11 and OP8. Thank you.
I thank the representative of New Zealand. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon.
Mr. Chairman, my delegation In our capacity as co-sponsor of the resolution, L54, which was brilliantly presented by my colleague from Chad, we wish to reaffirm our full unstinting support for this text. Our commitment as a co-sponsor attests to our tireless commitment to the critical work of the body, whose mandate my delegation fully supports. We remain convinced of the fact that the role of the body in the promotion of dialogue and confidence is a pillar for regional stability. In a subregional context, which is marked by interconnected security challenges, this body is critical for preventive diplomacy. This is a unique body where national concerns are reflected in collective action, where the inherited legacy of the past yields to its place to concerted action for a common good, work to facilitate exchanges, discreet mediation, and the promotion of confidence-building measures. Not only is this valuable, but it is also of indispensable significance. This is the very embodiment of the political will of countries subregion in resolving differences through cooperation and dialogue, not through confrontation. And this is precisely why, Mr. Chairman, these countries have worked in good faith to reach consensus-based text. My delegation applauds the efforts of all those who contributed to this important text. We, uh, have seen with a s- surprise that the consensus, uh, behind this resolution since its foundation was unfortunately not achieved this time. And this is all the more surprising insofar as it could have been avoided, given that the specific suggestions and concerns which traditionally have been conveyed to successive mandate holders of our states have always been attentively listened to and taken on board in the drafting of the text. So we are all the more concerned in light of the fact that the situation could weaken the scope of the unified message we sought to collectively set out, and this is why we formally invite all delegations to support this resolution, which, more than ever before, remains necessary. Every vote in favor of this will be a strong message of our collective commitment. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize the fact that the adoption of this resolution Although moving out of the comfort zone should be a step towards the restoration of our basic unity together through dialogue, we need to quickly get back on the path towards consensus, which has always been our asset and the legitimacy of this text on this renewed basis. of solidarity, my delegation calls for continued effective efforts towards a lasting peace and security in Central Africa in order to meet the legitimate aspirations of the people whom we have the pride and honor to represent. here. Thank you.
Thank you, representative of Cameroon. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to set out our position on draft resolution L.12, the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. Last year, the Russian Federation joined consensus on the General Assembly Resolution 79/44. However, we delivered a statement that we do not view ourselves as being bound by the provisions of PP9, and we retain the right to express our will separately on this if the draft resolution is maintained during the 80th present session of the General Assembly, if it is maintained unchanged. We wish first and foremost to stress that we do not associate ourselves with the Pact for the Future, which is not a balanced document. It contains elements which are not subject to consensus and cannot serve as a guide for international efforts to shore up the system of international institutions and agreements in the area of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. We have continuously been objecting to the mention of the Pact for the Future and the inclusion thereof in separate provisions in the specific General Assembly resolution, including those on disarmament. Turning to the text of PP9, which has been borrowed from the Pact for the Future, we have objections in principle. The proposal there is to begin preparations for the convening of the fourth General Assembly special session on disarmament, as if this is already a done deal. And yet, initially, what was proposed was to conduct preparatory work including the discussions of the feasibility of such an event, including its possible content, Russia believes that the organization of the fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament under present-day circumstances would be premature and would be counterproductive. Such an event would merely worsen disagreement and differences of view among United Nations member states on key matters on the disarmament agenda and will undermine the work of the relevant international fora. At the same time, we believe that the existing structure at the UN disarmament triad on the whole is optimal. and reflective of present-day realities. The inability of the international community to reach comprehensive, substantive results, to resolve profound disagreements, and to craft new international instruments in disarmament, nonproliferation, and arms control is a result by no means not this is by no means a consequence of insufficient number of disarmament for but rather this is a consequence of of the unwillingness of a number of Western states to engage in mutually respectful and Equitable dialogue in this connection we believe it is not timely to discuss the adoption of measures in preparation for the fourth general assembly special session on disarmament by invoking the pretext of the importance of generating momentum for the work of international disarmament structures, all the more so given the danger of attempts to link such an event to the UN 80 reform, which is currently underway. Every step in this direction needs to be calibrated. It needs to be balanced and reflective of the interest of every single United Nations member states. In light of the above, we will abstain in the vote on PP9. At the same time, In light of the general direction of the document and the on the whole balanced nature of its remaining provisions, the Russian Federation believes it is possible to join consensus on the draft resolution as a whole. Thank you for your attention.
I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. The committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.12 entitled, "Convening of the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L.12 was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on the 10th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/80/L.12. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Secretary of the Committee for his statement. A separate vote has been requested on the ninth preamble paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/12. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put this paragraph to the vote first. Those in favour of the ninth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?
The Committee is now voting on the ninth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.12. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 156, against 1, abstentions 5. The ninth preamble paragraph is retained. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L.12 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.16, entitled "United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L.16 was submitted on 10 October by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.16. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Thank you. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L.16 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.33, entitled "United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L.33 was submitted on the 13th of October by the representative of Nigeria on behalf of the states members of the United Nations that are members of the group of African states. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A, C1, 80, L33. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L33? If yes, My kind request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal 33 are as follows. Sierra Leone, the Congo. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Secretary of the Committee. The sponsors of the draft resolutions have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L.33 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.42, entitled "United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
draft resolution L42 was submitted on the 16th of October by the representative of Peru on behalf of the states members of the United Nations that are members of the group of Latin American and Caribbean states. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/80/L.42. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L42 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L48 rev.1, entitled "Report of the Disarmament Commission". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L.48 was submitted by the representative of Paraguay on the 14th of October. Subsequently, a revised draft resolution was submitted on the 2nd of November. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.48/Rev.1. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Secretary of the Committee. A recorded vote has been requested. We should now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.48/Rev.1, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?
The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.48/Rev.1, entitled "Report of the Disarmament Commission". The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all the delegates kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 168, against 1, abstention 0. Draft resolution L.48 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/49, entitled "United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L/49 was submitted by the representative of Nepal on 14 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/80/L/49. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L49? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Secretary of the Committee. Request for a separate vote has been requested on the fourth preamble paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/L.49. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put this paragraph to the vote first. Those in favour of the fourth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the fourth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.49. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 155, against 1, abstentions 3. The first preamble paragraph is retained. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L49 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/54, entitled "Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L.54 was submitted on 14 October by the representative of Chad on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Economic Community of Central African States. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.54. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Secretary-General and the Committee. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L.54, please signify. Those against? Absentions.
The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.54, entitled "Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa." The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their vote on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been complete. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 164, against 1, abstention 1. Draft resolution L.54 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/58, entitled "Report of the Conference on Disarmament". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L/58 was submitted by the representative of Mexico on 15 October. The sponsor of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.1/80/L/58. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Separate votes have been requested on the 11th preamble paragraph and operative paragraph 3 and 8 of draft resolution A/C.1/L.58. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put these paragraphs to the vote first, one by one. Those in favour of the 11th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the eleventh preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.58. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 92, against 2, abstentions 55. The 11th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 3, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The committee is now voting on operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution L.58. The voting machine is unlocked. The allegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all the allegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows, in favor 144, against one, abstention five. Operative paragraph 3 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 8, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 8 of draft resolution L.58. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 92, against 2, abstentions 53. Operative paragraph 8 is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.58 as a whole. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.58, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.58, entitled "Report of the Conference on Disarmament". The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 144, against 1, abstention 22. Resolution L.58 is adopted. I now call on delegations wishing to explain their position after the vote. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to explain Ireland's vote on resolution L/58, report of the Conference on Disarmament, sponsored this year by Mexico. Chair, Ireland commends the tireless efforts of Mexico for its stewardship of the sixth and final presidency of the Conference on Disarmament this year, and likewise in producing the Conference's final report on this resolution. However, the issues with the Conference on Disarmament and its associated resolution run deep. Chair, Ireland has abstained on the resolution, having previously done so in 2022. We've abstained for two reasons. First, the failure to reach agreement on the expansion of its membership and the exclusion of states from observing its work remains a matter of concern. Despite the best efforts of the Mexican presidency, in our view, the text of the resolution does not adequately reflect the situation that prevented 16 states, non-members of the Conference on Disarmament, from participating in its work this year. In 2024, 17 states were likewise prevented from participating. It is for that reason that we have abstained on PP11 and OP8, as we do not believe the text accurately reflects the long-standing, unacceptable state of affairs. Ireland supports the involvement of observers at the Conference on Disarmament. That approach is appropriate, correct and in line with the fundamental tenets of multilateralism and the constructive spirit that we seek to create within the conference. It goes to the heart of our collective efforts in pursuit of effective disarmament and non-proliferation. Ireland supported and could have accepted all the requests for observership put before the Conference this year and in preceding years. Second, we must reflect ongoing concerns in relation to the functioning of the Conference on Disarmament. It is deeply troubling that the CD has been unable to conduct negotiations and fulfil its mandate for now almost 30 years. Reports of the Conference on Disarmament during this period have taken a procedural rather than a substantive form. Ireland welcomed the progress made in the establishment of five subsidiary bodies, which allowed for the continuity of work in 2025. However, despite extensive discussions within these bodies earlier this year, agreement on substantive elements proved elusive. In some cases, there were attempts to dilute long-standing agreed language from SSO D/1 and commitments in the context of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT. Chair, Ireland believes that the resolution should reflect the reality of the challenges facing the Conference on Disarmament to enable the General Assembly to take informed decisions regarding its work. Ireland looks forward to engaging with all Member States in reflecting on the path ahead to reinvigorate the Conference on Disarmament and enable it, once again, to deliver on its important mandate. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Ireland. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to clarify the position of the Russian Federation on the draft L58 of the report of the Conference on Disarmament. We express our deep regret in the connection with the fact that the documents that have been previously adopted by consensus in separate paragraphs thereof were set by a number of EU and Canadian states for a vote. This is an alarming message for the entire international community, which reflects the unwillingness of member states of the conference from Western states to act in the spirit of compromise, to facilitate dialogue, and to seek mutually acceptable solutions for the Conference of the Somalians to be extricated out of the crisis in demanding a vote on P11 and OP8. And having spoken out against these paragraphs, the Western delegations who abstained are seeking to merely provide an opportunity for their closest allies and partners at the European Union to have an opportunity to additionally leverage the platform of the Conference on Disarmament for political statements to be made, baseless accusations, and insinuations against a full-fledged member of the Conference on Disarmament, as well as for political -- for the settling of political scores. This reflects This brings their experience back to previous years and reflects previous years. Strange as it may seem, the question of observers for Western states seem to be the most important in the operations of the Conference on Disarmament, even more important than launching the comprehensive, substantive work of the forum. They have, for this aim, sought to undermine consensus at the First Committee to that end. This is all the more absurd when the approaches of so-called countries who have not been allowed in on arms control and non-proliferation and disarmament matters and international security are already being regularly set out at the Conference on Disarmament by their NATO allies and their European Union partners. Unlike, for example, Palestine, whose voice would have been very important for the work in the Conference on Disarmament, and yet its application for participation last year was blocked by the United States and Israel. This step, however, was not condemned by Western who are allegedly zealous champions of multilateralism and inclusivity, and nor was there a due response from today's vote on the draft resolution at the First Committee. on the matter of multilateralism. The Russian Federation, for its part, voted in favor of the draft resolution as a whole insofar as this text, in our view, is balanced, not politicized, and reflective of the overwhelming majority of the provisions of the last year's consensus-based General Assembly Resolution 79/71. The document duly reflected the outcomes of the work of the session of the Conference on Disarmament in 2025 and it has maintained optimal language pertaining to those aspects of activity which have not changed over the year. And this also applies to OP 8, which contains a call for the Conference to adopt additional substantive measures to ensure multilateralism and inclusivity in the work of the Conference on Disarmament through the participation of States in its session, while at the same time ensuring strict compliance with the rules of procedure. As for P11, During the vote, we abstained. We see no need to establish a precedent with references to the reports of the conference, insofar as, especially given that the goal for the purpose for which these steps were undertaken, namely to maintain the consensus-based nature of the resolution on the CD, turned out not to have been attained, and this was owing to the destructive position of a number of Western states who put the document to a vote without having assessed the efforts of the Mexican authors of the. We also explain our vote on OP3. On the one hand, we believe that a reference to the previous decisions, including the program of work for 2009, is constructive in order to break the current deadlock on the conference. We support the provision of the document 2009, which refers to the fact that any negotiations on the FMCT need to be carried out on the basis of CD 1999 and the mandate contained therein. On the other hand, we believe that the document of 2009 is obsolete, specifically vis-a-vis the issue of preventing an arms race in outer space, where, in our view, there needs to be the immediate beginning of negotiations on the CD launched in order to arrive at agreement on a legally binding instrument. Therefore, we decided to abstain in the vote on OP 3. Thank you for your attention.
I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan.
Thank you, Chair. We have voted against OP 3 of L58, titled Report of the Conference on Disarmament. while voting in favor of the resolution as a whole. OP 3 calls upon the CD to adopt a program of work bearing in mind the 2009 program of work as well as other decisions and proposals. The 2009 program of work focused primarily on negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices based on the Shannon Mandate. Pakistan has consistently underscored that a treaty which only results in a cutoff in the future production while failing to dismantle thousands of tons of its stocks will be a non-starter, given that it would perpetuate asymmetries and will not make any contribution to disarmament. The principal advocates of an FMCT are those few states for whom such a treaty would remain a cost-free endeavor, even as they continue to block progress on other core issues on the CD's agenda, including nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Chair, the reference to the 2009 program of work in its current formulation was first inserted in the annual CD resolution in 2011. In subsequent years, while voicing our reservations on this reference, Pakistan joined consensus on the resolution in the interest of maintaining unity. However, experience over the past several years has shown that the Conference has been able to undertake substantive work only when it has adopted a balanced and comprehensive approach. The work undertaken in 2018, 2022 and 2025 bears testimony to this fact. Indeed, progress in those years was possible precisely because the Conference moved away from the narrow and outdated framework of the 2009 program of work, and rightly so. This evolution reflects a shared understanding among member states that genuine progress in the CD requires an approach that fully takes into account the legitimate security interests of all states. Pakistan, therefore, reiterates that the Shannon mandate has outlived outlived its utility. The 2009 program of FERC cannot serve as the basis for any future work of the conference. And I thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of Pakistan. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria.
Thank you, Chair. I am taking the floor to deliver an EUV on the resolution L58, report of the Conference on Disarmament, tabled by the delegation of Mexico. Austria aligns with the statement by the European Union. The continued stalemate of the Conference on Disarmament for more than two decades is a matter of grave concern for Austria. Many efforts have been made in recent years to bring the CD closer to its mandate to negotiate multilateral disarmament agreements. As outlined in our thematic statement on cluster 7, we are extremely concerned about tendencies that challenge the disarmament regime and the use of procedural maneuvers to delay, undermine, or even prevent substantive exchanges and productive work. When it comes to the CD, Austria has a clear track record to support all proposals and ideas proposed to facilitate consensus and to improve the working methods of the CD. Attempts to limit the participation of observers and regional organizations from some fora are clearly politically motivated, with the aim of silencing critical voices. We are particularly concerned about the infringement on the sovereign rights of states to decide who speaks on their behalf. Austria has also a track record as a strong supporter of an inclusive CD, open to membership of all interested states, with the full, effective and meaningful participation of women, as well as active participation of civil society. However, lack of political will has been preventing progress on any issue for more than two decades. The report of the CD of 2025 lacks any substance, despite an enormous amount of time and resources which were absorbed in the course of this year, as well as deteriorating international security situation and the importance of finally fulfilling the mandate of the CD in this regard. This further damages the credibility and relevance of the CD. Chair, while we regret that a consensual adoption of resolution L/58 was not possible this year, for the reasons just outlined, Austria abstained on L/58. We urge the UN membership to reflect on what can be done to reinvigorate the Conference on Disarmament as a negotiation body, not only as another forum for deliberations, to fulfill its mandate. We will do our utmost to contribute to these efforts. Unlike the CD, the world has not stood still for almost 30 years. If we want the CD to remain relevant, it cannot be held hostage by consensus interpreted as a veto. It needs to immediately commence actual work, that is, concrete negotiations. We urge all States to demonstrate political will. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Austria. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iran.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have taken the floor to explain the position of my delegation on draft resolution L/58 entitled "Report of the Conference on Disarmament". The Islamic Republic of Iran attaches great importance to the central role of the Conference on Disarmament as a single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum for the international community. In this spirit, my delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution as a whole. At the same time, Iran abstained on PP.11 and OP.3. With regard to PP.11, While Iran supports inclusivity and transparency in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, it underlines that all decisions of the Conference must be taken in full conformity with its rules of procedure and on the basis of consensus, which remains the cornerstone of its work. Iran's abstention reflects its understanding that this paragraph should not be interpreted as questioning that fundamental principle. Concerning OP3, Iran continues to support the adoption of a balanced and comprehensive program of work that address on an equal footing all core items on the agenda of the conference, namely nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, the prevention of arms race in outer space, and a treaty dealing with fissile material. However, Iran's abstention reflects its reservation regarding the reference to the 2010 2009 program of work, which should not be interpreted as agreement to commence negotiations on a fissile material treaty limited only to the future production and excluding existing stockpiles. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the representative of Iran. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.
Chair. The United States shares Secretary-General Guterres' desire to reform UN institutions to improve delivery of the UN's mandate. Our votes in Cluster 7 reflect that commitment to make the UN disarmament machinery fit for purpose and to soberly assess the current state of affairs. The UN Disarmament Commission is stuck in a state of paralysis. The United States voted no on L48, report of the Disarmament Commission, for this reason. President Trump has repeatedly made clear the U.S. commitment to nonproliferation and disarmament. The United States has been a leader on these issues and will continue to work to achieve the goals of the UNDC. But we can no longer turn a blind eye to the fact that the UNDC has been limited in advancing its stated goals for a long time. In order to implement the UN 80 objective of making the UN more efficient, we need to determine how to best use our time and resources. It is inefficient to meet for three weeks every year for 26 years and to only rarely come to an agreed consensus on two occasions with little to show for it. Chair, the United States is also concerned that the Conference on Disarmament has not achieved any real, tangible progress for decades. While we join consensus on L58, report on the Conference of Disarmament, we will be taking a hard look at next year's agenda and whether the organization remains fit for purpose. This analysis will inform future U.S. engagements on the CD. Both resolutions refer to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament and Research. The United States disassociates itself from UNIDIR references, given that we do not believe that its contributions are always helpful to advancing disarmament and nonproliferation objectives. We all need to take a hard look at whether the contributions of the institution justify the resources dedicated to it. Further, L58 includes language that is inconsistent with U.S. policy on the issue of harmful gender ideology. We addressed U.S. policy on this issue in a separate statement, and this issue appears in multiple resolutions across the work of the UN First Committee. Concerning L12, convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the United States decided to abstain on this resolution. because convening an SSOD for it would be both ineffective and costly. Additional expensive meetings without tangible results are not what are needed to advance disarmament goals. Thank you.
I thank the representative of the United States. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On Cluster 7, my delegation would like to explain its position on the draft resolution L/48. on the report of the UNDC and L58 on the report of the Conference on Disarmament. Indonesia voted in favour on both resolutions in order to maintain the integrity of the report of our disarmament machinery. We commend Paraguay and Mexico for their effort to prepare and transparently present the draft resolutions, respectively. On L58, Indonesia continues to support the role of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral negotiating body on this armament and appreciate the dedications of Mexico for the process. However, we are deeply concerned on the lack of consensus to this draft resolutions that traditionally adopted without the food. The same position applies to other resolutions that have for decades been adopted by consensus, including non resolutions. It is profoundly concerning that consensus increasingly is becoming a luxury in this committee, while politicization and polarizations are becoming more evident. We believe that this practice should not be the norm, as it will put the final nail in the coffin for our disarmament architecture. We also cannot afford another failure of the NPT Review Conference next year as a result of mistrust that born out prolonged politicizations and polarizations. Therefore, we call for a renewed political will to rebuild trust and to enhance the effectiveness of the UN disarmament machinery as our priority to achieve real progress in disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the representative of Indonesia. Distinguished delegates, I now open the floor for delegations wishing to make a general statement on the remaining proposal on the Cluster IV Conventional Weapons. Delegations are reminded that general statements are limited to five minutes. The Committee will now listen to delegations wishing to explain their position before we take action on the remaining draft proposals listed under cluster 4. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We wished to recall the the position explanation the Russian Federation on L41 lethal autonomous weapons systems insofar as it was rescheduled for today Russia in previous years voted against the what was mentioned in paragraph PB1 of the draft resolution 78/241 and 79/62 on laws the content with which we could categorically reject as was the case in the past in this document the sponsors of an initiative are once again starting to seek seeking to start the negotiations process on a legally binding instrument on LA W S and the international community has not reached a single understanding vis-a-vis the feasibility thereof we proceed from the premise that international law including international humanitarian law is fully applicable to for LA W S and does not need modernization connection with its specific features we continuously objected to the establishment of artificial bands on the development and the use of LA We believe that the only optimal platform for discussion of the whole range of issues linked to this question is at the Convention on Inhumane Weapons. This forum is a balance between the humanitarian concerns and legitimate defense interests of countries vis-a-vis the relevant arms systems. Discussions on LWSs have already been underway for a number of years at the Group of Government Experts and encompasses the whole possible range of issues, including legal, technical, and military aspects. It includes participation of all key states who are dealing with applicable activity in this area. At the same time, according to rules of procedure, the discussion can also include other interested parties. The transfer of the issue of LAWS at the present stage to other international platforms is liable to undermine the efforts of the GGE as they seek to find common ground and consensus-based solutions on a very important and sensitive issue. The sponsors of this draft resolution are merely replicating those elements of the mandate of the group like their interests and the end goal for their activity for them is launching negotiations as was done in OP3. We view this not only as an attempt to predetermine the outcomes of work on LAWS but also to revise the mandate of the GGE. This putting forward this matter in our view in this way is completely unacceptable. Turning to other provisions of the document, we continue to be concerned by the observation in the document about the applicability towards such systems of international human rights law. We wish to recall that this issue should be viewed through the lens of norms and principles of IHL, which apply to during armed conflict, international human rights law, applies to peacetime. We believe it is unacceptable to dilute LAWS as merely to risks and threats as the sponsors of the document do in PP3, PP4, and OP1. We believe that the relevant arms systems can demonstrate far more effectiveness than a human operator in addressing the goals set out, including to mitigate the likelihood of miscalculation and error, Moreover, we object to introduction of any theoretical or subjective imperatives, including, for example, ethical ones. We believe that on LAWS, the states play a key role, and they need to determine norm and rules for the application thereof. In this connection, we believe it's counterproductive for the participation on equal footing with states in discussion of this issue for non-governmental organizations, including academia, representatives of civil society, business, and industry, as I set out in PP9. This is counterproductive in our view, we see no added value in what was held in 2025 in New York, I referred to the informal consultations on the matter of LAWSs. and this is mentioned in the draft in PP12. We also do not believe it is wise to incorporate in the agenda for the next session of the General Assembly a paragraph on laws as is set out in OP4. Consideration of the United Nations, the activity of the GGE, which are subordinate to the Conference on Inhumane Weapons, is reflective of an attempt to exert pressure on the mechanism. To conclude, we stress that this draft resolution is undermining the activity of the GGE on LAWS, which can result in greater uncertainty in this area. We plan to vote against the draft as a whole, including PP1, PP8, PP10, OP3, OP4. We will abstain on PP2, PP3, PP4, PP9, PP12, and OP1. We call upon other states who support constructive dialogue on this issue to follow our example. Thank you for your attention.
I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/41, entitled "Lethal autonomous weapons systems". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.
Draft resolution L/41 was submitted on 14 October by the representatives of Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland. The Secretariat would like to inform of the following corrections to the second and fourth preamble paragraphs of draft resolution L41. The second preamble paragraph should read as follows, and I quote, "Affirming that international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, comma, international humanitarian law and international humanitarian rights law, comma, applies in relation to autonomous weapons systems, end of quote. The fourth preamble paragraph should read as follows, and I quote, concerned about the possible negative consequences and impact of autonomous weapons systems on international peace and security, comma including the risk of an emerging arms race comma of exacerbating conflicts and humanitarian crises comma miscalculations comma lowering the threshold for an escalation of conflicts and proliferation comma including to unauthorized recipients and non-state actors end of quote The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document AC.180.L.41. The additional co-sponsors of the draft resolution in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.41? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L41 are as follows: Trinidad and Tobago. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Secretary of the Committee. Separate votes have been requested on the first, second, third, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and twelfth preamble paragraphs, and operative paragraphs one, three, and four. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall, therefore, put these paragraphs to the vote. first one by one. Those in favour of the first preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the first preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 144, against 1, abstentions 9. The first preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the second preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the second preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 140, against 0, abstentions 9. The second preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the third preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the third preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? Can delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected? I understand that the listing of the names on the screen might be a bit skewed, but I just wanted to confirm that you are all seeing your respective delegations and that your vote is accurately reflected. Yes? Thank you. The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
Result of the voting is as follows: in favour 144, against 0, abstentions 8. The third preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the fourth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the fourth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 143, against zero, abstention eight. The first preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the eighth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The committee is now voting on the eighth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 140, against 2, abstentions 8. The eighth preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the ninth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on the ninth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. With all delegations, can I confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 142, against 0, abstention 8. The ninth preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favor of the 10th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The committee is now voting on the 10th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 135, against 3, abstentions 14. The 10th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the 12th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The committee is now voting on the 12th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 137, against 1, abstentions 15. The 12th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 1, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The committee is now voting on operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. the allegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all the allegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows in favor of 142 against zero, abstention ten, Operative paragraph 1 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 3, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is voting on operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 135, against 5, abstentions 13. Operative paragraph 3 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 4, please signify. Those against, abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution L.41. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 140, against 4, abstentions 8. Operative paragraph 4 is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.41 as a whole. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.41, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.
The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.41, entitled "Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems". The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. all the allegations, kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board. The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.
The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 156, against 5, abstention 8. Draft resolution L41 is adopted. I now call on delegations wishing to explain their position after the vote. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.
Chair, China abstained on draft resolution L41. on lethal autonomous weapons systems, as well as its relevant paragraphs. China wishes to explain its voting position as follows. First, China takes very seriously the legal, security, and humanitarian challenges posed by laws and supports strengthening the existing international legal framework. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is the appropriate forum to discuss laws related issues under the CCW framework, important consensus such as the 11 principles has been reached. China welcomes the positive progress registered by the GGE under CCW since last year. The priority now is to stay focused on the GGE process and avoid any disruption to it. Second, the text of L41 continues to overlook the core element of lethality. Conflicts laws with autonomous weapon systems and thereby broadens the scope of discussion. This approach will only complicate this issue. China maintains that member states should reach a consensus on the defining characteristics of laws and negotiate a legally binding international instrument on that basis. In light of this, China abstained on the draft resolution as a whole. as well as on PP 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 12, as well as OP 1, 3 and 4. Thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of China. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.
Thank you, Chair. Israel would like to explain our position regarding lethal autonomous weapons systems. With regard to L41, Israel attaches great importance to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. We value the CCW's achievements regarding conventional weapons and believe the CCW has the ability to strike the appropriate balance between military and humanitarian considerations. This approach is cardinal when we discuss a topic such as lethal autonomous weapons systems. Israel believes it is important to continue our deliberations with regard to laws within the CCW's GGE in a substantive and meaningful way, focusing on informed discussions that allow us to further our mutual understandings and continue to examine the complex topic at hand. In this light, Israel opposes the prejudgment language in this year's draft resolution. Among other things, the language, in our view, insinuates that the GGE's work will lead to discussions on a legal framework, clearly not the mandate of the current group. In Israel's view, this resolution is not in the collaborative spirit which reigns over the GGE on laws. Over the course of the GGE's work, Member States have made great progress and have been able to reach many new understandings. However, resolutions such as L41 do not contribute to this work. For these reasons, Israel chose to vote no on resolution L41. I thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of Israel. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of India.
Thank you, Chair. India has voted in favour of the resolution L41. We acknowledge the efforts of the co-sponsors to accommodate our concerns. India continues to believe that the CCW is the appropriate forum to discuss issues relating to lethal autonomous weapons systems with a view to striking a balance between military necessity and humanitarian imperatives. The GGE on laws is addressing the full range of challenges and concerns relating to laws in a comprehensive and inclusive manner. Consistent with the mandate, the group is considering and formulating by consensus a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature. India has abstained on PP2 because the application of international human rights law does not fall under the subject matter of this committee. I thank you, Chair.
I thank you, Representative Babha. India? Distinguished delegates, we have heard from the last speaker for the explanation of vote after the vote on the cluster for conventional weapons. The Committee has thus concluded action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under the agenda items allocated to it. Our last order of business is to adopt the draft provisional programme of work and timetable of the First Committee for 2026, as contained in document A/C.1/80/CRP.4, which was distributed to all delegations. As delegations are aware, this programme of work and timetable is considered under agenda item 121, revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. While the Bureau has taken note of the positive lessons learned from a streamlined session this year and calls by many member states for even more streamlining in 2026. It also believes that the incoming bureau should have the flexibility to work with a program that enables them to consider all options, all the new in the new year. Finally, I would like to remind all delegations that the first committee shares its conference facilities and other resources with the fourth committee. Consequently, the draft provisional programme of the First Committee for 2026, which we are considering now, has been prepared in consultation with the secretariat of the Fourth Committee. The two committees will continue to coordinate their work and maintain a sequential pattern of conducting their meetings to maximize shared resources. The provisional programme of work under consideration will be finalized and issued before the First Committee starts its next session. Are there any comments? I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.
Chair, the United States appreciates the Bureau's and Secretariat's work in preparing the provisional programme of work for the 81st UN First Committee. Still, we were dismayed the initial draft called for a full five week session and failed to account for or to bring forward any of the efficiencies gained this year. This year's session was shortened to four and a half weeks with three additional floating holidays. Effectively, we met for only four work weeks. To our knowledge, no delegation has complained that our work did not get done in the time allotted or that we did not manage a productive exchange of views. In fact, we are finishing our work one business day early. In this UN 80 year of reforms and cost cutting, and since many member states addressed during the organizational meeting and in their cluster seven statements, the need to further reduce cost and find efficiencies, we were surprised none of the suggestions made by member states were implemented this year, have been included in the notional program of work. The United States recommends that when the Bureau convenes, that it consider ideas proposed by member states, as well as the French-German working paper submitted this session, as well as efficiencies from this year, which included shortened speaking times, a reduced number of side events, and a schedule shortened to no more than four weeks before the final program of work and timetable are adopted. The United States would be prepared to break consensus later when the program is submitted for final adoption a shortened schedule is not proposed. We also recommend adjusting next year the length of time for rights of reply, since this year those statements were longer than the thematic cluster statements themselves. Thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of the United States. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Chairman, The General Assembly First Committee is a key forum for the consideration of matters related to arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation, and international security as a whole. This platform plays a key role in delivering on global peace and security. And we view changes that were introduced in the work of the First Committee this year, we view these changes as a necessary measure, a consequence of the situation that unfolded and which does not create a precedent for the future. We believe that next year there is a need to revert back to the traditional number of meetings and format for statements delivered by delegations at the First Committee of the 81st session the General Assembly, including during the general political and thematic clusters. We believe that the reduction of the already limited time for discussion reduction in the number of meetings held and time allotted for statements during the thematic discussion devalues dialogue at the Committee on important matters on the international agenda, and all of this is liable to further deteriorate the global situation in the area of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. This is particularly topical amid present-day geopolitical realities. We believe that reverting back to established working methods will help to ensure an appropriate level of discussion, expertise, and analysis to arrive at solutions for issues and problems faced by the international security in the area of international security. For our part, we wish to propose a change in the timetable set out for submitting draft resolution to have this during the third week of the first committee session, which will provide for additional time for consultations. And at the same time, the decision on the submission of the draft for the consideration of the committee, this decision, including vis-a-vis regularity, needs to remain in the hands of the sponsor of the document. An important issue linked to the organization of activity of the First Committee and the expert groups established under the General Assembly resolution is the participation of non-governmental actors. We believe that the parameters thereof need to be fully in accordance with the General Assembly rules of procedure and established practice at the First Committee. This needs to be carried out without prejudice for the intergovernmental nature for this body as a whole, and compliance with this principle will help to avoid problems activities of the First Committee and will help to ensure its efficiency. We trust that during the intercessional period, there will be no proposals to fundamentally change the organization of the work of the First Committee. We believe that the First Committee needs to deliver upon its mandate without any exceptions, to have every opportunity to study and to fine-tune specific proposals about any aspect of international security and arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. Only in this way can we reach a mutually acceptable solution and improve the international security situation, arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. We also wish to remind all of delegations that the Russian Federation, from the very first meeting of this session of the First Committee, has and continue to propose the relevant proposals to revert back to established practice for the convening of sessions of the First Committee. We will continue to insist on this moving forward because we believe that this is the only way to provide for appropriate working conditions for all delegations, including for the exercise of their right, including their right to reply. Thank you.
I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you to you and to the secretariat for the work that has gone into preparing the draft programme of work for next year's First Committee. Under your leadership, Chair, we have demonstrated this year that a more streamlined First Committee a more efficient first committee is achievable. By holding states to strict limits on statements and factoring in the 10% cut to the overall schedule, we retained the integrity of the debate while securing greater efficiencies. We need to build on and preserve this approach. My delegation was disappointed, therefore, to see the committee reverting to a full five-week session for next year's first committee. Mr. Chair, there are further steps that we can and must take. This includes reviewing the time limits on rights of reply. Our current approach to rights of reply is incompatible with other measures we have taken this year. It simply makes no sense to allow in thematic debates for a total of six minutes of rights of reply, twice the time allotted for individual cluster statements. And as we witnessed just this week, Some states are all too happy to abuse this opportunity to further advance their national positions, including on debates that have already closed. As we conclude our work, I urge the Secretariat and next year's Bureau to use the intercessional period to engage in regular dialogue and consultations with states on what more we can do to drive efficiency in the First Committee in a manner that allows both the UN and its member states to benefit. while ensuring that our work remains inclusive and effective. Thank you.
I thank the representative of the United Kingdom. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, first, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, the Bureau and the Secretariat for your efforts in preparing the programme of work, which as we see again is planning for five full weeks in 2026. Chair, it is our firm belief that in times when the UN reform is high on the agenda, when the call for greater efficiency in our work can be heard louder and louder all over the place, the First Committee should not stand aside. And indeed, this year several proposals in this respect have been presented. I would just like to recall the French-German on paper entitled, "How can we collectively make the First Committee of the UN General Assembly more efficient?" which has found broad support amongst member states, containing a number of suggestions for incremental yet realistic improvements, like inter alia the reduction of the time dedicated for general statements, as for statements in the different segments, concentrating on the submission of draft resolutions providing for new mandates or substantial updates, the streamlining of segments and reduction of the overall duration of the first committee. In our view, The reduction of formal sessions this year has shown to be effective and, in our view, should have been repeated in 2026 and further possible reductions examined for the upcoming years. Mr. Chair, we fully understand that the proposal for the reduction of formal sessions and even more far-reaching ideas have to be carefully examined and discussed by delegations. Today, at the end of highly intensive weeks of substantial debates, might not be the right moment to have these discussions. But these discussions have to take place, and we should take care that they start in time, before we meet again for the first committee next year. So we should make full use of the time available to prepare for this discussion. We could ask the Secretariat to prepare an overview of the different proposals put forward. We could call for an informal discussion during the intersessional period, and we could dedicate specific time in the organisational meeting next year for examining the different ideas on the table, hopefully finding enough common ground to implement some of them in our session next year. Mr. Chair, as we approach the end of this first committee, I take the opportunity of thanking you and your whole team and the secretariat again for the able handling of our procedures under your able stewardship. We would like to encourage you to continue your work in the intercessional period, taking into consideration some of the suggestions to improve the work of this committee put forward during the past weeks. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you, the representative of Germany. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Netherlands.
Thank you, Chair. My delegation would like to thank you, the entire Bureau and the Secretariat for guiding us through this first committee season. Regarding the programme of work for the 81st session of the First Committee next year, I would like to make the following remarks. With the UNSG's UN80 initiative in mind, we strongly favour reducing the overall duration of the First Committee to four or even three weeks a year, starting next year. This will help reduce costs, lessen the burden on the already packed multilateral disarmament schedule, and allow us to focus on the core tasks of this Committee. This year's First Committee has shown that this is possible. We propose a few feasible and incremental steps to this end, largely in line with the non-paper shared by the French and German delegations earlier. We call upon the entire membership to take the necessary steps to improve the First Committee's efficiency and have the following suggestions. First, the time dedicated to general statements, cluster statements, and rights of reply should be further reduced. National general statements should be limited to five minutes, while group statements should not exceed eight minutes. Moreover, rights of reply should be kept under three minutes for the first instance and under two minutes for the second. Second, we support the idea of merging clusters together when it would come at no prejudice to the discussions on the substantive issues, for instance, by combining cluster six and seven. Moreover, we favor exploring the possibility of rotating biannual thematic debates in clusters two through seven. instance by discussing clusters 2 and 3 in even years and 4 5 6 and 7 in odd years third we strongly encourage states to only submit draft resolutions that contain new mandates or substantial updates and decrease the frequency of submission so resolutions are submitted once every two or three years as much as possible chair my delegation stands ready to continue this conversation and looks forward to another successful first committee season in 2026 I thank you.
I thank the representative of the Netherlands. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.
Thank you, Chair. We would like to thank the Chair and the Secretariat for the way in which they've steered the First Committee's work. We thank you for your efforts this session to increase the effectiveness of our work. We take note of the proposed provisional programme of work for the 81st session. With Germany and many other Member States, we have made proposals to rationalize our work and make it more efficient, bearing in mind the context of the UN80 initiative. We regret the fact that it hasn't been reflected as it currently stands in the first iteration. We have seen greater efficiencies already this year. We have seen the reduction in the number of interventions and their duration. This is something we have already achieved this session, and it's a pity we haven't already reflected it in our plans already for next year's session. We support Mexico's request to have a list for ways to rationalize the work of the first committee. We have already suggested some options in the non-paper that France and Germany have set out. We thank member states for their support to that non-paper this meeting. We have seen various measures that have been put forward to reduce the length of statements, the number of resolutions put forward, not to renew resolutions that only have minor technical changes, to reduce the number of clusters and to reduce the overall length of the first committee's meetings to no more than four weeks. We would like to thank Member States for these contributions and we support the idea that has been made by several Member States to have a meeting specifically devoted to look at the first committee's methods of work so that together we can find a solution to make our work more efficient and operational. Thank you.
I thank the representative of France and give the floor to the distinguished representative of Armenia.
Mr. Chair, my delegation would like to thank you and the Bureau for your leadership in this committee. We support the French-German efforts on making First Committee more efficient. In our view, the efficiency measures would contribute to the UN initiative in terms of alleviating organizations' work overload. It is regrettable that the circulated draft program of work for 2026 did not reflect changes suggested in the French-German non-paper. We are in a view that the rationalization of the work of the committee could be done through the steps such as reduction of the time dedicated for all kind of statements or biannualization or triannualization of resolutions. This will make room for new substantive contributions. Streamlining the number of segments, for instance, merging cluster six and seven into one would come no prejudice to discussions on the substantive issues covered by these two clusters. The suggestions above aimed at optimizing the resources of the First Committee. as well as better addressing collective understanding of disarmament topics from a national point of view. We are ready to engage constructively in further discussions towards efficiency measures of the Committee. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Armenia. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.
Thank you, Chairman. I thought I was just going to make an intervention after seeing the programme of work adopted, but given that other Member States have already taken the floor, I would also like just to make a few comments from my side. First of all, we'd like to thank you and all of the secretariat for proposing the proposed programme of work, for putting forward the programme of work for next year. We would also like to say that we support the idea that you mentioned about giving enough flexibility to the incoming Bureau to make the necessary adjustments depending on the conditions of the moment. Mexico will always be in favor of efficiencies, but we don't believe in cutting for the sake of cutting. Some of the proposals that we've heard don't have the foundation, we don't think, moving to they would ultimately mean reducing the time for the first committee from five weeks to three weeks. We think we need to have more time for negotiation on these matters. For instance, the first two days were used for informal negotiations on resolutions, which is something that we fully support. If there were a decision for next year, we think we can be flexible on this and support it. But if we're just cutting without further justifications being put forward, that's where we have an issue. Now, on what has been said by France, and we are grateful to France for referencing Mexico's suggestion of potential options, this is something we would like to request being presented in due course, and we think the time has come to look at a compilation of proposals in the discussion of methods of work at the beginning of the Committee's work. We think it would have been better to have this discussion at the start of the session and not just when we come to adopt the programme of work now. In conclusion, I just wanted to make some points on what we've seen during this session. First of all, we think that we have seen efficiencies. We have been able to conclude the thematic debates on time and, as some delegations have already said, we are finishing one day early. So, yes, we have seen efficiencies and we think that the time limits were beneficial. But, and this is where we have to achieve clarifications, during the action phase, The general statements in some cases just repeated what was said in the thematic debates at the start, and at other times they were also used as explanations of vote, which allowed for some delegations to have a double explanation of vote. And that was also seen in the rights of reply. That is where we think there can be efficiencies in terms of the speaking time. and not allow for duplication of what has already been said in previous meetings. We also think there has to be consistency. If we're talking about cuts in the weeks of the first committee's work, this should also be applicable to the UNDC as well. We proposed changes in this regard, but we didn't see a lot of support there. And we haven't heard anything about the duration of the DC. If we're making cuts here, we should also look at cuts in other areas of the disarmament machinery. But once again, we think this should all be discussed in a special discussion on the First Committee's methods of work, so that ultimately then we can adopt the programme of work as you have proposed, sir. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Mexico. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt.
Mr. Chair, Ambassador Massari, we thank you for your leadership, as well as the timely and effective conduct of our work, which is evident that we are finalizing the agenda before us one day earlier than anticipated. Egypt, in national capacity, fully supports the circulated version of the program of work. We recognize that the circulated version of the draft program of work is only provisional. It will be subject to further consultations and consideration by the committee as a whole under the leadership of its upcoming bureau, taking into account the financial situation in the organization and across all the committees of the UN General Assembly. and reintroducing revisions that reflect equity and track the progress in our discussions at the UN 80 front. Mr. Chairperson, Egypt for two years now in a row as part of our discussions at the section of the methods of work and planning, we have championed a proposal for an intercessional consultative platform under the leadership of the chair and the bureau. the successive bureaus of this committee to look into the matter of the methods of work and to try to arrive at findings and conclusions that reflect a sense of unity of purpose and burden sharing. To conclude, Chairperson, and as Mexico mentioned, that any changes need to reflect the essence of work of this committee and needs to be well grounded and justified. Any changes or any proposals submitted need to take into account, at least at this stage, a couple of observations. First, that while bearing in mind the time that we have spent and exhausted during this session in putting to vote texts that have been adopted by consensus for many years, the Committee worked with a record number of low number of texts presented and also a record number less of new texts. This is an observation that needs to be taken into account, and it's very difficult to create estimates that will not be able to accommodate change in the circumstances. Two, that the time needed by smaller delegations to navigate the work of this committee and engage effectively and actively with the different topics at hand and engage with capitals is certainly longer than the time that would be required by larger delegations, especially from nuclear weapon states and developed countries. What can be done by one or two people in five weeks can be done by 15 people in two or three weeks. So we appeal to all colleagues to take into consideration the needs and the different circumstances of the other member states at the UN and to try to provide them with the conducive environment that allows them to engage meaningfully and effectively, not only at the voting stage. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Egypt. Give the floor to the distinguished representative of Equatorial Guinea.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for the opportunity to take the floor on this agenda item on the work of the First Committee for 2026. My delegation believes that having a more efficient First Committee is critical, and all States must be able to participate equally in the Committee's work. We would like to stress that English is not the only official language of the United Nations. And not all countries who use English as the language in this committee are up to date with their payments to the organization. So it wouldn't be fair for Other countries not to be able to use the other official languages of the organization as a result of efficiency gains, purportedly, because very frequently in the informal meetings there is no simultaneous interpretation provided and countries are forced to use English, which reduces the spirit of universality and equality that should govern the work of this committee. We therefore call respectfully on the Secretariat and the Bureau to look at measures that would allow for a more balanced treatment for all six official languages of the United Nations, and not simply to use English, which is to the detriment of some delegations' work. We welcome the inclusion of technical and scientific groups in the proposed programme of work. We have seen that, and we think that it is a valuable contribution to the committee's work and should be something that we see going forward, as it strengthens the transparency of the committee's work. We trust that, next year, there will be an appropriate balance between efficiency and respect for multilingualism, which is a critical aspect of our work here. Thank you.
Thank you, representative of Equatorial Guinea. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Denmark.
Thank you, Chair. I would also like to thank you, the Bureau and the Secretariat for the CRP4, the draft program of work and the timetable, and also for your work during this session. It has been a pleasure. Let me start by expressing our full support to the non-paper drafted by France and Germany, proposing different ways to make the first committee's work more efficient and effective. also taking the UN's financial situation as well as the UN 80 initiative into account. Under your guidance, Chair, the working methods and the UN Member States' discipline, we managed to get ahead of the timetable without losing nuances or perspectives. I think we all heard perspectives on the issues we had on the agenda during the debates, some underlined several times in duplicate, in statements, explanations and replies. Chair, we find that the CRP1 from this year should be the point of departure for next year's programme of work and timetable. That goes hand in hand with looking into further possibilities of optimisation, for example, motion clusters, but also other elements. For example, we find that the time allocated for rights of reply should not exceed the time allocated to statements. No, it should be shorter. And we find that we should continue to use the clock and the microphone cut-off. But we also need to look inwards. Resolutions tabled with only editorial or technical changes should not come every year. We should not have late release of texts. We should use informal consultations as consultations and not only information. And similar items we can do to support the work and make it more efficient and effective. Thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of Denmark. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by thanking you and your team, as well as the secretariat, not just for the program of work and timetable, but for your arduous work throughout the first committee. We believe what we did this year was a step in the right direction, and there's still much to do. We would like to support the statements by the U.S., the U.K., Germany. the Netherlands and others as to the need to review ways to make our work more efficient and perhaps examine that in the intercessional period before we start our work next year. So once again, thank you, Chair and your team, and we look forward to working together next year.
I thank the representative of Israel. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador.
Thank you very much, Chairman. El Salvador would also like to echo those delegations who have thanked the Bureau for presenting the proposed programme of work for next year. El Salvador can accept the proposal as it has been tabled. And, as some other delegations have said, we agree with the need to make efficiencies in the Committee's work. What we don't agree with, as some other delegations have said, is just to cut for cutting's sake without undertaking an exhaustive analysis of where these cuts are going to fall and, ultimately, what we decide to do. In the discussion on the methods of work, we have already put forward various options and recommendations, and we said that we need to have a broad reflection on not just how we improve the work of the First Committee, but the entire disarmament machinery in general, because the First Committee doesn't work in a vacuum. Some proposals that have been put forward should look at the number of thematic clusters, and we also need to perhaps look at some resolutions being every two years or three years, as well as the proposed speaking time for interventions. We hope that we can look at things holistically and inclusively, and I underscore that word because it's very important for that to be part and parcel of our work. Thank you.
I thank the representative of El Salvador. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. First, on behalf of the whole Polish delegation, let me congratulate you on your excellent leadership and guidance throughout the whole session of the first committee this year. Many, many thanks to you. Chair, Many proposals have already been presented, which clearly proves that there is some appetite for discussing the provisional programme of work. It is provisional not without a reason, and the reason why we have the inter-sessional period is that some adjustments to the programme may be needed. Poland fully supports the non-paper presented by France and Germany. We think that the ideas proposed therein are not revolutionary. In fact, we have almost just finished the session that has already embodied some of them. We have had shorter speaking limits, fewer meetings and side events. And I think we have proven more than very well that we can live in such circumstances. Therefore, my delegation supports, among other proposals, the ideas of reducing the number of meetings, biennialization and triennialization of the documents, as not every text requires an annual update, and keeping the time limits for interventions short. Mr. Chair, dear Ambassador, I think it goes without saying that I remain ready to work with you on the programme during the intercessional period. Once again, thank you.
I thank the representative of Poland. May I take that the Committee wishes to adopt the draft provisional programme of work and timetable of the First Committee for 2026 as contained in document CRP/4. I hear no objections, so it is so decided. I shall now call on delegations who have requested the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to four and a half minutes for the first intervention and two and a half minutes for the second intervention. I call on the representative of the United States to take the floor.
Thank you, Chair. I am compelled to reject in the strongest terms the earlier statements made by the delegate of Iran about the United States. My delegation has addressed, during the nuclear cluster and voting on cluster 1 resolutions, many of Iran's claims. Regarding compliance, which is a subject of cluster 5 and appropriate to the action on resolutions today. Iran has been found to be in significant noncompliance of its commitments and noncompliance of its obligations by multiple states and by the IAEA
Board of Governors.
The United States remains open to direct talks with Iran to achieve a lasting, peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue. Iran must also fully cooperate with the IAEA and fully implement its safeguard obligations. U.S. diplomacy prioritizes ensuring compliance with nonproliferation obligations and obligations under existing arms control and disarmament treaties. We are committed to advancing initiatives to reduce nuclear risks worldwide. As we have noted, the US decision not to run its compliance resolution this year and instead run a decision, which I note passed by an overwhelming majority of states, does not in any way diminish the importance the United States places on compliance matters. Thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of the United States and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.
We would like to exercise our right of reply in response to the statement made by the representative of Denmark on behalf of the European Union. Many delegations recall the evolution of situation concerning the approval of non-member states as observers at the Conference of Disarmament. Turkey has long maintained its principled position in favor of inclusiveness for years by avoiding politicization of the CD and adhering to the established established practice of considering observer applications as a blanket list. Although our concerns have been on record for many years, Turkey never raised an objection to the blanket lists concerning observers' participation. This approach stemmed from Turkey's strong commitment to preserving the constructive spirit of the conference, ensuring it remained free from politicization. The attempted imposition of double standards by some states in approving observers, leading to the erosion of the established practice in recent years, is a cause of concern. It is regrettable that the EU appears reluctant to acknowledge this evident reality. Nevertheless, we stand ready to engage in efforts to restore the previous practice of granting blanket list approval of observers. I thank you.
I thank the representative of Turkey. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.
Thank you, Chairman. We are exercising our right of reply, given the baseless statement made by Israel this morning. This was a deliberate measure taken against my delegation. It is regrettable that this country, which is engaged in genocide, is undertaking further measures. And this is something that is undermining the work of our organization. Their acts this morning tried to divert people's attention from their own crimes. The flag of Palestine is one of the flags that has been flown pursuant to the appropriate resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations. So only Israel, only Israel, who are trying to exterminate the Palestinians and to wipe out the country, only Israel is refusing to recognize that reality. Thank you.
Thank you, representative of Cuba. Give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
Ms. Uram.
Ms. Uram: Mr. Chairman, we do not deem it possible not to address the latest inaccurate, false remarks from the delegation of the European Union, which were thrown to our country vis-a-vis the situation on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The prospects for the treaty entry into force indeed are not on the horizon, but this is not at all Russia's fault, contrary to the claims being made by many. The reason is completely different. Since 1999, the U.S. delegations, one after another, under fabricated pretext, have been refusing to ratify this treaty. and practical steps in favor of this treaty have not still been undertaken by Washington. Clearly, the United States has no interest whatsoever in acceding to this treaty, and this has been confirmed in the vote. at the First Committee on the relevant draft resolution. Under these circumstances, as well as in light of the present-day political landscape as a whole, the Russian Federation has believed that it is not acceptable to have the imbalance that has unfolded between the Russian and the U.S. in terms of obligations under this treaty. And our rescinding of the obligations under the treaty has helped to amend this imbalance. And the relevant federal law entered into force on 2 November 2023. Once again, we emphasize that this is precisely about the withdrawal of ratification -- revocation of ratification. Despite this measure, Russia remains a signatory to the CTBT with all of the emanating rights and obligations, and we continue to fully participate in the Preparatory Commission the organization on this treaty. We are complying with the moratorium on nuclear tests, which was introduced in 1990 under the Soviet Union. We also repudiate the false accusation about the alleged breach of the principle of inclusivity and multilateralism in the Conference on Disarmament. First and foremost, we wish to stress that it is indeed thanks to what we proposed, the procedural decision, it was possible for observers to participate during the session of the Conference in 2024 and 2025. Otherwise, there would not have been such participation at all. It is important to bear in mind that the Conference on Disarmament is a negotiating forum of limited composition, which is operating on the principle of consensus. At the same time, Member States of the Conference shoulder an obligation to fulfill the mandate of the Conference and to establish effective work at this platform. Consequently, members of the forum have the right to allow for participation of those who are in a position to positively and constructively to the operations of the Conference on Disarmament and to not allow for participation those who are not seeking to facilitate equitable, constructive dialogue and constructive efforts. Once again, all of this is fully in accordance with the rules of procedure. We also wish to stress that the Russian Federation has consistently been advocating inclusivity in intergovernmental processes. We attribute tremendous significance to the role of observers. However, this inclusivity is not an end in and of itself, and addressing the question of observers needs to be dealt with by taking into account the specific features of every specific platform and strictly in accordance with the rules of procedure. Thank you for your attention.
I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.
Thank you, Chair. First, I would like to thank the Arab Group for their support of our presidency at the Conference of Disarmament last year. Following to Cuba's latest remark, I would like to stress that while cultural attire and national symbols are permitted at the United Nations official meetings, to my knowledge, the keffiyeh is not part of Cuba's traditional attire, nor is the Palestinian flag representative of Cuba. In addition, I am compelled to react to statements made earlier today. Israel categorically rejects the baseless accusations made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the constant name-calling he has called us during the whole committee. These claims are nothing more than an attempt to divert the international community's attention from Iran's own long record of destabilizing behavior and systematic violations of international law and U.N. resolutions. The more hated the Iranian regime is at home, the more it spreads violence in the Middle East. It is unfortunate that the people in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and the Iranian people have had to pay the price for this absurd and evil policy. The people of Iran, who have been oppressed by this grotesque Islamic Republic regime for almost 50 years, want no part of this genocidal hate and violence. A day will come Hopefully soon, when the Persian people, an ancient, glorious civilization, will be free of this terrible, hateful regime, and our two peoples will finally resume the great friendship that existed between us in the past. I thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of Israel. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lithuania.
Thank you very much, Chair. Lithuania wishes to respond to the statement delivered by Belarus in its explanation of vote today. Today, Belarus spoke of supporting resolution L6, confidence building measures in the regional and subregional context, and on confidence building measures in general. It stated that the purpose of CSBMs is to reduce the risk of incidents at borders. Yet, its actions tell a different story. Just starting 21st October, This year, Lithuania faced reckless actions in its views as hybrid attacks when unauthorized smuggling air balloons violated Lithuanian airspace from Belarus, forcing airport closures for four nights and disrupting nearly 100 flights and 14,000 passengers. This contradicts the very objective of confidence-building measures, which, as are affirmed in the resolution adopted today, aim to reduce the risk of incidents and strengthen regional security through peaceful means. We also recall Belarus's involvement in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, its instrumentalization of migration, and unresolved safety concerns at the Astravyets nuclear power plant, built intentionally just 50 kilometers from our capital. We call on Belarus to translate its words into concrete actions. and to implement its international obligations, as well as genuine confidence-building measures. We urge Belarus, as well as other persistent violators of our airspace, to take immediate and effective steps to prevent further violations of EU and NATO airspace and ensure such actions do not recur, in line with the resolution's call to avoid accidents. I thank you.
I thank the representative of Lithuania. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iran.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, my delegation categorically rejects baseless allegations made by a representative of the United States against Iran's compliance and Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities program. Second, I will not dignify the absurd allegations made by the representative of the Israeli regime. whose so-called defense forces have turned the killing of children in Gaza into a routine practice. This is not an allegation, but a well-documented reality, evidenced by countless videos and reports showing members of these forces who think about their crimes. Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues. I would like to dedicate my last right of reply at this session of the First Committee to the memory of more than 75,000 innocent Palestinians, among them countless children, who have been brutally massacred by the Israeli regime in Gaza over the past two years. I am certain that many in this room share these sentiments. To these innocent victims, I say, I am ashamed with all my heart that my mission in New York has coincided with one of the darkest chapters of our time, the massacre and genocide perpetrated by the Israeli regime against the people of Gaza. I am ashamed that this organization, founded to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to uphold the rule of international law, has failed to act decisively to stop this atrocity. I am ashamed that the Security Council, entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, has remained paralyzed in the face of such overwhelming evidence of crimes against humanity. I am personally anguished that I cannot answer my own child, who, often witnessing the suffering and starvation of Gaza's children, asks why the world remains silent. And I am haunted by the knowledge that in years to come I may have no answer to the question, "Why did you do nothing when this crime unfolded before your eyes and you were at the United Nations?" Yes, I am truly ashamed before my conscience, before humanity, and before present and future generations that this organization has not lived up to the principles for which it was created. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the representative of Iran. I now call on the representative of Cuba for the second intervention.
Thank you, Chairman. In the wake of what was said by Iran, it is regrettable what we have heard from Israel. Israel should listen to the overwhelming majority of the international community to have Palestine as a fully fledged member of the United Nations. The flag of Palestine will fly alongside that of Cuba. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Cuba for her intervention. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Jordan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I listened carefully to the statement of the Israeli representative. Symbols that reflect identity or solidarity with the people under occupation should not be viewed as acts of provocation. The Palestinian keffiyeh is not a political tool. It's a piece of heritage, a thread of hope, and a quiet reminder of a people's rightful struggle for freedom and dignity, long recognized by this organization. When symbols are worn with respect, they should be seen for what they are, expression of identity, of culture, and of the enduring spirit of those who continue to seek justice and peace. Now concerning the Arab Group position on the CD resolution last year, allow me to highlight, Mr. Chairperson, that the Arab Group did not support Israel last year. We took a position to support the CD resolution, not the Israeli presidency. I thank you.
I thank the representative of Jordan. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To avoid confusion and the manipulation of the truth, following the remarks by
the Israeli representative on the support of the Israeli or by the Arab group of the Israeli
presidency of the CD last year, we wish to remind you
of the statement by the representative of Lebanon, which chaired the Arab group
during the 79th session of the General Assembly before the adoption of the resolution on the conference report.
And this was documented, and I wish to quote the following remarks.
The Arab Group recalls the importance of the Conference on Disarmament as the multilateral forum for negotiations on international instruments
that has supported the adoption of the resolution by consensus.
However, the Arab Group
recalls its utmost concern vis-a-vis the fact that the chairmanship of the previous conference was done while there was a threat to international peace and security, namely an act of aggression perpetrated against the innocent Palestinian people on the Gaza Strip or in the Gaza Strip. We also recall the fact that the chairmanship of the previous year ignored the request by Palestine to participate in the conference. The statement also pointed out that the chairmanship last year objected on or objected to holding a discussion or any formal discussion on the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and as per item two of the agenda.
And the Arab Group also stressed that it supported the draft resolution since it only supports
the disarmament conference, and this should not be interpreted as a change in position vis-a-vis the chairmanship
to seize part of this right of reply to underscore the deep appreciation to the delegation of Cuba for exhibiting a sign of solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people. We are of the view that no delegation in this room has the liberty or the discretion to interfere in the discretion of other delegations in their attire, including in showing a signal of political solidarity with situations of gross violations of international law in other places, including the right to self-determination. And, Mr. Chairperson, let me underline my conviction that if this committee was destined to hold its meetings tomorrow, I would believe that a considerable portion of this chamber would have been also in a Palestinian cafe. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Egypt. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for the second intervention.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I am compelled to exercise our right to reply in connection with the completely false, disassociated with reality insinuations from the delegation of Lithuania and the attempts to distort the situation around the actions of the Russian Federation in the conduct of the special military operation in Ukraine. Once again, we recall, we wish to remind the Lithuanian delegation of the fact that what the Russian Federation is doing in order to resolve the Ukrainian crisis is called a special military operation. It has the relevant objectives, which we wish to assure the Lithuanian delegation will be achieved. And at the same time, we wish to stress that the Russian Federation is entirely focused on a political-diplomatic resolution to this crisis, and the relevant proposals from the Russian Federation remain on the table. We are expecting a reaction from the Kyiv regime to these proposals, and we will hope that this reaction will help to settle this crisis through political diplomatic means while complying with and upholding all of the goals and objectives that our country set out when we launched the special military operation. Thank you for your attention.
I thank the representative of Russian Federation, I give the floor to the representative of Israel.
Thank you, Chair. I will be brief. I have already explained in length about the unfortunate phenomenon of Palestinianism, an ideology based entirely around the belief that Jews should not have a state in their ancestral homeland. Those representatives who hate the truth continue to peddle narratives. We are still hopeful that one day these states will understand that Palestinianism is nothing but an ideology of hate and war adopted only by extremists. On that day, the State of Israel will still be there, extending an olive branch. I thank you.
I thank the representative of Israel, distinguished. No, sorry. I give the floor to the representative of Iran for his second intervention.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry for taking the floor at the last minute. But in response to the baseless allegations by the representative of the United States against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities program, I would like to clarify the following. Just months ago, two nuclear-armed states launched a 12-day bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, targeting scientists and safeguarded facilities. Iran did not yield or abandon its program. The reality is clear. Knowledge cannot be bombed away. Iran has paid a higher price for not building a weapon than others have for actually doing it, doing so. Yet, it has neither capitulated nor pursued weaponization. It has instead continued its nuclear development transparently and peacefully under the IAEA safeguards. What these repeated miscalculations ignore is the missing element in all Western narratives about Iran's nuclear policy, which is dignity. For Iran, the nuclear issue has always been viewed through the lens of dignity, independence, inalienable rights, and national pride, not through the narrow calculations of deterrence or economic cost. The nuclear program has become a symbol of sovereignty and self-respect, and dignity cannot be negotiated or bombed away. The 2015 JCPOA succeeded precisely because it acknowledged Iran's dignity, recognizing its right to enrichment and engaging on the basis of mutual respect. When Iran was treated as an equal, it accepted voluntary limits and the most rigorous verification regime in history. That achievement collapsed not because of Iran, but because the United States unilaterally withdrew and Europe failed to uphold its commitments. Those who imagine that reimposing sanctions, coercive measures, or repeating baseless allegations will yield better results are mistaken. Such policies only strengthen resistance and discredit diplomacy. To move forward, the US and Italy must shift to a paradigm that places dignity at its core. Only within such a framework can we hope to find possibilities for a solution. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the representative of Iran. I give the floor to the representative of Lithuania for his second intervention.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in response to recent Russian Federation's intervention, Russian Federation is repeatedly lecturing and using different terms to describe the war. We all know that war is war and aggression is aggression, whatever you choose to call it. Thank you.
I thank the representative of Lithuania for her intervention. Distinguished delegates, the Committee has now concluded its consideration of the last item on the agenda for today. This year, the Committee finished its work after having to forego three formal plenary meetings due to budgetary constraints. In addition, we are able to cancel the two plenary meetings scheduled for tomorrow. Excellent time management allowed us to proceed efficiently to conclude in a timely manner. During the session, 156 delegations made statements within the general debate segment, three more than last year, while an impressive 471 interventions were made during the thematic discussion segment, compared to 435 in 2024. During the action phase, the Committee adopted 63 draft resolutions and decisions. 49 of which were adopted by recorded vote, with 160 separate votes requested. 14 draft proposals were adopted without a vote. Before I adjourn this meeting and close the main part of the 80th session of the First Committee, I give the floor to delegations who may wish to give final comments at this time. I see no one wants to add anything. And allow me to make some final remarks as chair of this committee. This session of the first committee took place in a complex geopolitical scenario. However, we can't accept the narrative of ineffective multilateralism. We need to be pragmatic and focus on the greater good of collective security. In view of the next session, we need to work together to elaborate compromises aimed at enhancing multilateral cohesion. The fact that we were able to anticipate the end of the works proved that the programme of work was effective. I will continue to work with you to contribute to further streamline, increase efficiency and ultimately facilitate consensus building in the works of the committee. Allow me to conclude by thanking the members members of the Bureau, the Secretariat, and all the interpreters for all your fundamental support. Distinguished delegates, the main part of the 80th session of the First Committee is thus concluded. The Committee shall reconvene sometime next year to, inter alia, elect its chair and other members of the Bureau for the 81st session. Let me conclude my remarks by wishing all those who are leaving a safe trip back home. The meeting is adjourned.
